Thursday, April 12th 2012

1366 x 768 Most Popular Screen Resolution, Overtakes 1024 x 768: StatCounter

1366 x 768 pixels overtook 1024 x 768 as the most popular screen resolution worldwide, for computers, according to the latest statistics by StatCount. This new dominant screen resolution is a particularly important statistic for web-developers, as they can now make their designs more optimized for at least 1366 pixels-wide screens. 1920 x 1080 and 1680 x 1050 hold less than 5% of the market-share each. The growth of 1366 x 768 could have been propelled by dominance in the notebook market (across almost all market-segments), and entry-level PC monitor market. The interactive screen resolution stats graph can be found here.



The press-release by StatCounter follows.

Screen Resolution Alert for Web Developers
A major milestone in screen resolution sizes has been passed according to independent web analytics company, StatCounter. The company's research arm, StatCounter Global Stats reports that for the first time 1366x768 has become the most popular screen resolution worldwide, having overtaken 1024x768.

"The data reflects a continuing trend of users moving to larger screen resolution sizes," commented Aodhan Cullen, CEO, StatCounter. "The screen resolution size people are using is a critical factor for developers when it comes to web design, particularly in the case of fixed width web pages."

Since StatCounter began its tracking of screen resolution in March 2009, as a free service to developers and other users, 1024x768 has been the dominant screen size globally on the web (excluding mobile*). 1024x768 has fallen from 41.8% in March 2009 to 18.6% in March 2012. Over the same period 1366x768 has grown from 0.68% to 19.28%.The third most popular size is 1280x800 at 13%.

Cullen also said that while StatCounter Global Stats provides information on worldwide and regional trends, monitoring the specific screen resolutions being used to view individual sites is also very important.

StatCounter (http://statcounter.com/) provides free website traffic analysis. This allows web developers to capture screen resolution stats on their own and on their client websites in real time. Other information available includes search terms, download stats, exit links and other data.

StatCounter Global Stats data is based on over 15 billion page views per month (4 billion from the US) to the StatCounter network of more than three million websites.
Add your own comment

75 Comments on 1366 x 768 Most Popular Screen Resolution, Overtakes 1024 x 768: StatCounter

#1
Vulpesveritas
16:10 100%. I have a 1920x1200 and it is quite a bit more pleasant than any 16:9 monitor IMO.
Posted on Reply
#2
wickerman
by: RejZoR
Actually there is.

A 1280x1024 or a 1366x768 screens can be powered by mid-high end graphic card for up to 200 EUR and it will last for literally years and you can play games with max possible settings no problem.

With 1920x1080 screen, you need a 300+ EUR card and you might already have problems in newer games which will have lower fps already. Yes, even 1080p will eventually get to the point of the above two resolutions, but it will take some more time.

I'm telling you this from my personal experience. I have a 1280x1024 screen and most will argue that it's too low res and too old. But i like it. Size doesn't bother me, but it just works and i can play EVERYTHING with my HD6950 at max possible settings. Most ppl were scared with Far Cry, Crysis series and latest Battlefield 3. I wasn't. I knew it would run easily with Ultra settings. And it did. With this screen i can simply watch everyone rushing for HD7970 and GTX 680 and just well, laugh. And i'll see if there will even be any need for HD8970 and GTX 680...

So, the first rule of cheap gaming, have a moderate resolution screen and you'll get through some high quality gaming much much cheaper. At the moment this resolution is 1366x769 and 1280x1024. Wide and boxed format, whatever you prefer. The biggest problem is they all rush for cheap 1080p screens and then complain how their games are slow...
I would argue that playing 1280x1024 with an HD 6950 is just not making full use of your card right now. As a comparison, I used an HD 6950 to upgrade my brother's aging Q6600 based system so he could run eyefinity in SWTOR with 3x 23" panels. Despite his system being a bit dated he's still able to play high settings and manage 50-60 fps in demanding areas. So that single GPU is pushing 3x 1080p panels and almost 5x as many pixels as your single 1280x1024 display. So that just shows how much of your GPU is sitting idle right now.

You do have a valid and legitimate point that the card will last you for several years and remain able to play some of your games at high settings. But remember the ultra settings in some games will rely on GPU technology that may be implemented in the latest version of Direct X, Direct3D, or OpenGL which your card will not support, so no you will not always be able to run ultra settings in the latest games every year despite running a lower resolution. Some games today (I believe Shogun 2 is among them) require you to run DX11 mode to play the ultra detail settings and get tessellation, where as the high detail modes would be limited to DX10. So some doing what you have done and is still running an older card from a few years ago may still be running a very powerful DX10 card and running Shogun 2 smoothly at 1280x1024, but wont be getting the full detail experience because they dont have DX11 support.

Which is why, perhaps the better option for lower resolution gaming would be to buy the cheaper mid range cards every year or so? That way you get the latest tech every time, you take advantage of the latest processing (lower power, lower heat, lower noise), you get the latest features (directx, opengl, latest media acceleration, etc).

But honestly, resolution IS king. More pixels means more clarity, you get to see more detail, you're not running so much texture compression, and you don't have to rely on a lot of post processing or AA/AF to improve image quality. At 2560x1440 (or 4360x1440 depending if I want to run my triple panels in business mode or fun mode :toast: ) I really don't even need AA enabled because you can hardly tell the difference.

TheLostSwede is correct, at 1080p you DO NOT need a $400 gpu, pretty much anything in the $100 range will do. A GTX 460 will plow through any game at 1080p with high settings.

At this point the lowest resolution device I own is my 1080p TV. My ipad runs 2048x1536, my PC runs 4360x1440 (17" portrait, 27" landscape 17" portrait).
Posted on Reply
#3
Goodman
by: Vulpesveritas
16:10 100%. I have a 1920x1200 and it is quite a bit more pleasant than any 16:9 monitor IMO.
The advantage of 16:10 are for text & web surfing because of the more height they have but if i would use my pc only for that an 4:3 monitor would be best

On an 16:10 or 16:9 monitor you can always split the screen in the middle with 2 pages , each page would look like if you were using an 4:3 monitor , well... more like two of them in fact...:laugh:

Anyhow i like my 16:9 because i can surf the web on half my screen & watch a movie on the other half or do something else at the same time :cool:

by: mtosev
man i hate 16:9 on pc monitors. 16:10 All The Way:):)
They are both widescreen & the extras 120 pixels are not that much to go nuts over it IMO
Posted on Reply
#4
Milky
I wonder what the average screen resolution is for a TPU user? Personally I just got one of those super cheap catleap monitors with 2560x1440.
Posted on Reply
#5
Yo_Wattup
16:10 is silly, you get the same amount of space for movies, but not a whole lot extra for web and games. You should determine if your web browsing, photoshopping, gaming or watching movies more and make your mind up on a 16:9 or 3:4 monitor
Posted on Reply
#6
Vulpesveritas
by: Yo_Wattup
16:10 is silly, you get the same amount of space for movies, but not a whole lot extra for web and games. You should determine if your web browsing, photoshopping, gaming or watching movies more and make your mind up on a 16:9 or 3:4 monitor
I find that 16:10 fills up my visible space better than 16:9, but that's IMO I suppose.
Posted on Reply
#7
Derek12
by: scooper22
yeah, let's get all back to 640x480 or even 320x200 :banghead::banghead::banghead:
Until recently I was using 800x600 so go figure :D
Posted on Reply
#8
RejZoR
@wickerman
How exactly you get more detail if you subsequently also have higher diagonal? You're just making image bigger, not more detailed. Because you're not increasing the pixel density. And pixel density is what is actually increasing visual detail.

Also if i'm not fully utilizing my HD6950, that means i can live with it easily till DX12 arrives and even past that point since DX12 games won't arrive immediately. Most of you will have to buy another DX11 card in order to even get properly playable games.
Basically i feel like i'm using a console. Whatever i throw at it works as intended. High framerate, max detail. No compromises for minimal cost. It's really a budget gamer's heaven.

I'll eventually go to 1920x1080 or whatever it will be at that point, but you'll all probably be at 2560x1920 or something at that point. And i don't mind that. It works great for me.
Posted on Reply
#9
HammerON
The Watchful Moderator
My lappy is 1366x768, but my desktop is 2560x1600:)
I hate when I am away from home and try to play at 1366x768:(
Posted on Reply
#10
Melvis
What is 1600*1200 rare these days? :S
Posted on Reply
#11
Yo_Wattup
Personally i thought 1280x1024 would be the most popular because its the cheapest to produce and they use it a lot commercially
Posted on Reply
#12
Milky
by: Yo_Wattup
Personally i thought 1280x1024 would be the most popular because its the cheapest to produce and they use it a lot commercially
I agree, I would have expect that to be the most popular, im also surprised at how low 1920x1080 ranks...
Posted on Reply
#13
treehouse
by: RejZoR
With 1920x1080 screen, you need a 300+ EUR card
damn that new ipad must have a HELLUVA gpu!
Posted on Reply
#15
Prima.Vera
My laptop have a 17" screen and a 1920x1200 resolution. And is a disaster. Even if I keep my DPI to almost 200%, Win 7 still fracks things up. Everything is scaled badly, the java/flash/active x site and apps don't scale well with high DPI, not to say that they actually don't scale at all, so I need to use a microscope to read text and stuff; etc, etc. Imagine is sharp, but not that sharp compared to my friends laptop which works at 1366x769, and everything is PERFECTLY scaled and sized.
So bigger resolution doesn't necessary means better quality, ESPECIALLY for Microsoft OSes...

by: treehouse
damn that new ipad must have a HELLUVA gpu!
Enjoy trolling? Are you playng Crysis of BF3 on your tablet?? Hmm?? :banghead::banghead:
Posted on Reply
#16
swirl09
by: RejZoR
I'm telling you this from my personal experience. I have a 1280x1024 screen and most will argue that it's too low res and too old. But i like it. Size doesn't bother me, but it just works and i can play EVERYTHING with my HD6950 at max possible settings. Most ppl were scared with Far Cry, Crysis series and latest Battlefield 3. I wasn't. I knew it would run easily with Ultra settings. And it did. With this screen i can simply watch everyone rushing for HD7970 and GTX 680 and just well, laugh. And i'll see if there will even be any need for HD8970 and GTX 780...

So, the first rule of cheap gaming, have a moderate resolution screen and you'll get through some high quality gaming much much cheaper. At the moment this resolution is 1366x769 and 1280x1024. Wide and boxed format, whatever you prefer. The biggest problem is they all rush for cheap 1080p screens and then complain how their games are slow...
Well I wont argue about your res, if your happy with it, what else matters? And sure enough, pushing fewer pixels means there no need for top notch GPUs or the need to upgrade frequently. I dont think Id go so far as to laugh at others though. If you have a higher res, there is always the option to run lower/windowed (where appropriate). And actually, with the res you are running, Ive no idea why you even have a 6950OC it doesnt know what its doing in there!


by: HammerON
My lappy is 1366x768, but my desktop is 2560x1600:)
I hate when I am away from home and try to play at 1366x768:(
Yup, I know that feeling! Ive 3 of them (only game on 1 - pass on hassle of multi screen, BEZEL, lack of support and the need to spend an awful lot on GPUs) and you just cant express how much work space someone with one 1080p monitor is missing ^_^!

Although speaking of gaming, I havent bought any games really in over a year since Id have to tone down res's and settings. I personally dont even want to see them in that state... Roll on new build in a few weeks =]
Posted on Reply
#17
xBruce88x
by: scooper22
yeah, let's get all back to 640x480 or even 320x200 :banghead::banghead::banghead:
and lets bring back pixel doubling in games as well (F.E.A.R. on a GMA950 anyone?) :cool:

by: mtosev
man i hate 16:9 on pc monitors. 16:10 All The Way:):)
by: Vulpesveritas
16:10 100%. I have a 1920x1200 and it is quite a bit more pleasant than any 16:9 monitor IMO.
Agreed... for some reason the extra 120px seems better.

by: Melvis
What is 1600*1200 rare these days? :S
I got a KDS Avitron that does that res pretty well. I'm not using it atm though, it uses a whopping 200watts, while my current display is only using 35w :rockout: Though I do miss the higher res.


I can see the need for higher res in games, but everything else not so much, at least not until Windows gets better with DPI settings and scaling. I don't really need the space for the icons, i found an alternative to filling up the desktop. I'll post a vid a little later.
Posted on Reply
#18
Red_Machine
It's better for web pages that are properly formatted. It sucks having to scroll to the right to see an entire image or post.
Posted on Reply
#19
xBruce88x
here's a little trick to clear the desktop icons

http://youtu.be/zbi1jMXNIKk?hd=1

after you get everything set up, right click the desktop and go to view then take the check off of "show desktop icons".

i can make a better "how to" video if anyone needs it.
Posted on Reply
#20
treehouse
by: Prima.Vera
My laptop have a 17" screen and a 1920x1200 resolution. And is a disaster. Even if I keep my DPI to almost 200%, Win 7 still fracks things up. Everything is scaled badly, the java/flash/active x site and apps don't scale well with high DPI, not to say that they actually don't scale at all, so I need to use a microscope to read text and stuff; etc, etc. Imagine is sharp, but not that sharp compared to my friends laptop which works at 1366x769, and everything is PERFECTLY scaled and sized.
So bigger resolution doesn't necessary means better quality, ESPECIALLY for Microsoft OSes...



Enjoy trolling? Are you playng Crysis of BF3 on your tablet?? Hmm?? :banghead::banghead:
no, neither is 99% of the general public ;)
Posted on Reply
#21
_JP_
Those 19'' LCDs must be selling like hotcakes. They also are the reason the VGA port is still around.
Posted on Reply
#22
Completely Bonkers
I hate to say it, but, Apple and the new macbook iPad3 and iPod/fon 5 will redefine what "is popular". Give or take 3 years, and I bet we are back to 4:3 screens. Funny how everyone hates on 4:3 yet most tablets are going back to this very sensible format. I think I have tired everyone here with my constant call for 2K and 4K high resolution, high pixel density screens. I hope they "go consumer" soon, so we can all benefit.

The nicest screens I have seen to date are 2Kx2K. But they are industrial/avionic use and cost a fortune. If only I had deeper pockets...
Posted on Reply
#23
mastrdrver
by: Rowsol
So this is why websites like to use 1/3 of my screen...

A 1080p monitor is $150. No reason not to have one.
by: btarunr
The average consumer doesn't want to spend >$100 on a monitor, and >$300 on a computer.

TPU is optimized for 4K screens, Eyefinity, and 3DVision Surround, btw. ;)
Good thing you can get a 1080p monitor from Newegg for ~$100. :D
Posted on Reply
#24
Wrigleyvillain
PTFO or GTFO
by: mastrdrver
Good thing you can get a 1080p monitor from Newegg for ~$100. :D
Sure...if you live in North America. The fortunate elitist in me first reacted to this title like "Hah is this from 1998?" but it's kind of important to remember this is not a freaking Steam survey but rather general world-wide use and on not just desktop computers.

What does a nice 1080P display generally cost in, say, Bangladesh?

Though I would also like to point out that if you're a gamer and you have the system power than at least 1080P widescreen is a no-brainer.
Posted on Reply
#25
Vulpesveritas
by: Completely Bonkers
I hate to say it, but, Apple and the new macbook iPad3 and iPod/fon 5 will redefine what "is popular". Give or take 3 years, and I bet we are back to 4:3 screens. Funny how everyone hates on 4:3 yet most tablets are going back to this very sensible format. I think I have tired everyone here with my constant call for 2K and 4K high resolution, high pixel density screens. I hope they "go consumer" soon, so we can all benefit.

The nicest screens I have seen to date are 2Kx2K. But they are industrial/avionic use and cost a fortune. If only I had deeper pockets...
Funny as I see most high end android tablets running 16:9 as it is a better resolution for media consumption for most people. Given that your field of vision is closer to 16:9/10 than 4:3. Hence the reason for it and all.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment